There’s something about the prospect of the passage of laws forbidding employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that strikes such fear in opponents that they revert to hoary old anti-gay slurs, and fearful defensiveness.
In Idaho, where the Republican Party officially endorsed reversing recently passed local laws banning anti-gay discrimination, the chairman of the Republican Resolutions Committee said that this was necessary because a gay employee might “come into work in a tutu.” He continued, pontificating sagely:
“I’d hire a gay guy if I thought he was a good worker. But if he comes into work in a tutu … he’s not producing what I want in my office. … If a guy has a particular predilection and keeps it to himself, that’s fine … But if he wants to use my business as a platform for his lifestyle, why should I have to subsidize that? And that’s what these anti-discrimination laws do.” Who could argue with this carefully considered and thoughtful position?
And good ol’ Congressman Louie Gohmert can always be counted on for a trenchant quote pulled from his knuckle-dragging psyche. He echoed his colleague in Idaho when asked his opinion of ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). After disingenuously professing ignorance of the bill and having it explained to him, he opined “Who wants to go talking about sexual orientation when they’re working? Good grief.”
Good grief indeed. The status quo and its dwindling number of embattled defenders will not give up until drowned by the inexorable wave of the 21st Century and modernism which they dread so much.